Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012 provide for the conduct of referendums in relation to whether a county council, district council or London borough council should change its existing governance arrangements to different—executive or non-executive— governance arrangements. These regulations replace the 2007 Conduct of Referendum Regulations. In large measure, they replicate the 2007 provisions with which councils and their returning officers are familiar. These are the basic rules for the conduct of any governance referendum.

In addition, as necessary these regulations update the 2007 provisions. They do this particularly to reflect the changes that the Localism Act is making to local governance. In essence, the Localism Act 2011 implements the Government’s policy of extending the governance options available to local authorities by adding the committee system to the existing executive models set out in the Local Government Act 2000. It will therefore now be open to local authorities to operate one of the following governance models: the mayor and cabinet executive; the leader and cabinet executive (England); the committee system; or prescribed arrangements—that is, prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

Part 1A of the 2000 Act as inserted by Schedule 2 to the Localism Act, provides for local people to have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum in certain circumstances. The result of such a referendum is binding on the local authority concerned. There are four circumstances under which a local authority would hold a referendum on its governance arrangements. They are where one is triggered by a petition signed by local people; where the authority itself chooses to hold a referendum; where an authority wishes to move away from a governance model that was approved by way of a referendum; or where an authority is required by order to do so. It is this final situation that we will come on to debate later, when an authority is required by law to hold a referendum on whether it should adopt the mayor and cabinet executive. If Parliament approves these regulations and the orders, the mayoral referendums will be held under the rules set out in the regulations.

Noble Lords will see that these regulations reflect the changes provided for in the Localism Act. That is, they provide for the inclusion of questions about whether a local authority should adopt the committee system and whether a local authority, specified in an order made under Section 9N of the 2000 Act, should adopt the mayor and cabinet executive, the orders made under Section 9N of the 2000 Act being those orders that we are debating today.

In addition, these regulations update the 2007 provisions in four further ways. First, they remove references to the now abolished mayor and council manager model. Secondly, on the basis of advice and expertise of the Electoral Commission, they update and improve the questions to be asked in a governance referendum, set out in Schedule 1, and the ballot papers in Schedules 3 and 5. In consulting on the questions set out in Schedule 1 to be asked at governance referendums, the questions were sent to the Electoral Commission, which undertook public consultation on the questions and ballot papers. As a result of the consultation, the Government have adopted the referendum questions and the form of ballot papers as recommended by the commission; these are the questions that are included in Schedule 1 of the regulations. A report setting out the views expressed by the commission on the questions has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.

Thirdly, these regulations remove the unnecessary prescription in relation to how local authorities publicise information about referendums; for instance, the date of the referendum and the question to be asked. For example, under the 2007 regulations, local authorities are currently required to publish such information in one or more local newspapers. However, under these regulations, it will be for each local authority to decide the best method for ensuring that this information is brought to the attention of people living in its area—a change which, I am sure noble Lords will agree, brings these regulations further into line with the Government’s localism agenda.

Finally, provision has been made at Regulation 10 to add the election of a police and crime commissioner, under Sections 50 or 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act to the list of elections with which a poll at a governance referendum may be required to be combined.

In short, these new regulations will put in place the rules needed for ensuring effective administration of referendums in which the electorate can have confidence. They follow a well tried practice, simply updated for today’s circumstances. The referendum questions are as recommended by the Electoral Commission. I am confident that these regulations will ensure efficient and effective administration of any referendum. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have attended the Moses Room to speak about the idea of an elected mayor in Birmingham, which has been around for a long time. I have come to support the order. I have always taken the view that the opportunity to have an elected mayor should have been taken at least a decade ago. Therefore, I hope that the referendum is successful. To that extent, I hope that there is a large majority for an elected mayor and a very high turnout among the citizens of Birmingham. I do not think that we want to get into the argument of having a small majority on a low turnout, which would be a disaster, simply because the result is binding—a one-vote majority and that is it. That is the same as we had with the AV referendum earlier this year. I can recite all that.

The idea of an elected mayor is a good one, and I hope that the citizens of Birmingham, of which I am no longer one, embrace it. My home in the West Midlands is in Shropshire, not Birmingham. The idea of bringing about a different form of leadership and partnership in local government is long overdue, particularly in the West Midlands and the West Midlands conurbation. I have travelled around the country as a Member of the other place and a Minister for 12 years, and one notices the difference in attitude in co-operation. I cite in particular the difference between the Greater Manchester group of authorities and the West Midlands group of authorities. There is much more partnership and effective leadership in the Greater Manchester set of authorities than there is in the West Midlands. I think that they work together in a much more collegiate way, to the benefit of their citizens. The trigger for change in some attitudes would be the mayoral referendum for Birmingham. I accept that Coventry is also on the list, so I am not arguing one way or the other, but I think it will create a new style of leadership for the citizens of Birmingham and that that will spill over into the West Midlands.

Depending on the referendum—I hope it will be successful—there will be a contest. I shall certainly not go into personalities here, but I know that the issue has always been who can be the mayor. Being mayor of a big city is a 24/7 job. I think the Mayor of London will testify to that, although I have not discussed it with him. It is clearly a 24/7 job. It is not a job for celebs who are not used to public service. I realise that there are some great American examples of successful celebs, such as Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood, but we do not have those people in Birmingham. I want to make it absolutely clear that neither do I think it is a job for has-been politicians. There has to be a way for people from outside the normal mainstream to do public service, but not celebs.

People have to be very wary about what is being offered. It is a mayor for the city; it is not a mayor for the council and it is not a mayor for council workers; it is a mayor for the citizens of Birmingham. That is a big distinction and I think it is a great opportunity. I have never spoken on this issue, which has been mooted for many years, but I regret that when the Labour Party was the majority party in Birmingham it did not grab the idea with both hands when the opportunity came along. Councillors did not want to do it. In fact, I regret the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition that has ruled Birmingham for eight or nine years now. It did not take the opportunity and it could have done this.

I am very pleased by the views of the Secretary of State in taking this action. I am also pleased about the way in which it has been done in the large cities. This is not picking on people. Take the 12 largest cities. I fully accept the issue relating to Sunderland. Of course, Leicester gave a lead on the matter by deciding it earlier. I think Birmingham, as the largest city in England, should have given a lead on this. It has some unique features which I think will be enhanced with the different form of local government that will come out of this. I give my support to the referendum and I hope it is a big success. I emphasise that I hope there is a large majority. I know that some people will want to oppose it, but the citizens of Birmingham need to know that if they want a new future and a new way of running the city, they have to come out and vote in support of it on 3 May. I give the order my support.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, my noble friend and I have worked together for many years and most of the time we agree. To the extent that this order frees certain models for local people to determine, I am totally in favour of it. Given the different personalities, different commitments and different people at local level, the people should be able to choose. However, I cannot believe that it is right for us in Westminster to determine this at a time when local authorities are facing very difficult circumstances with regard to care for the elderly at home and other local government services.

The Minister knows that I have great respect for her experience in local government, although, as with my noble friend Lord Rooker, we do not always agree. I find it hard to understand why we should tell people that they must spend money on a referendum. It is perfectly open to individuals and parties running at local level, to represent their local community, to present as part of their manifesto a commitment to local people that there should be a referendum—that they would like to see one. However, I am deeply saddened that, when there is a small easement over the “Westminster knows best” model, alongside it this afternoon is not “you may” but “you will” or “you must”. I cannot agree with that.

We have seen it with the police commissioners. I spend a lot of time meeting people in my community who are deeply disturbed about money being spent by order from Westminster on certain things at the expense of other things that people have developed in their locality and hold dear. I am deeply distressed that we are telling people that they must spend money on a referendum.